Radical Abundance: How a Revolution in Nanotechnology Will Change Civilization

May 6, 2013

K. Eric Drexler is known as the founding father of nanotechnology—the science of engineering on a molecular level. In Radical Abundance, he shows how rapid scientific progress is about to change our world. Thanks to atomically precise manufacturing, we will soon have the power to produce radically more of what people want, and at a lower cost. The result will shake the very foundations of our economy and environment.

Already, scientists have constructed prototypes for circuit boards built of millions of precisely arranged atoms. The advent of this kind of atomic precision promises to change the way we make things—cleanly, inexpensively, and on a global scale. It allows us to imagine a world where solar arrays cost no more than cardboard and aluminum foil, and laptops cost about the same.

A provocative tour of cutting edge science and its implications by the field’s founder and master, Radical Abundance offers a mind-expanding vision of a world hurtling toward an unexpected future.

The topics include:

The nature of science and engineering, and the prospects for a deep transformation in the material basis of civilization.

Why all of this is surprisingly understandable.

A personal narrative of the emergence of the molecular nanotechnology concept and the turbulent history of progress and politics that followed

The quiet rise of macromolecular nanotechnologies, their power, and the rapidly advancing state of the art

Comments (18)

We already have radical abundance. Productivity has skyrocketed. But as long as we have a fourteenth century economic system that literally forces disparity, there will be No radical abundance. There are too many haters in Congress who will ensure that our topheavy society remains that way.

Socialism has already proven itself unable to handle vast abundance. A hundred examples of failure ensure as Fukuyama asserts, liberal democracy and capitalism is the last best form of human social organization.

Seems to me that we really need to begin a long deep planetary discussion about, “Knowing what we know now about humans (genetically, psychologically, sociologically, economically) and the history of civilization, how would we reorganize our global society to really maximize the ideals of most democratic countries’ declarations of independence?

It’s really a deeply complex topic that requires taking into account looming technological changes as well as current conditions – and the solution should have baked into it a process by which whatever is decided can itself change – is expected to change – as science and technology throw new challenges and opportunities in front of us.

There are so many dystopian tomes around that sometimes you want something positive. Drexler presents future “vignettes” or visions of what he thinks is not only possible but also probable. The question of economy is important, perhaps all-important but it should be kept in mind that the purpose of any economy is not building wealth or “taking care of people”; it is determining value which is why market-based economies are far superior in “delivering the goods” than mandated ones.

How will value be determined in a world of abundance? Perhaps various levels will exist – a basic for everyone and a bonus for those who want more. Drexler details several areas where nano will not only provide an abundance of goods but do so incredibly cheap (think manufacturing and biotech). It’s a shotgun approach, switching from topic to topic, reviewing where we’ve been, what’s gone wrong and what we should be looking for in the near future.

As others have stated, there is no clear road map for achieving these goals. This is to be expected and welcomed since there are myriad pathways, each of which build on the preceding one, and true progress is organic and not directed. I like that the author left the “how” intentionally vague since any strict plan automatically precludes other options.

For an instructive guide on this topic, simply witness the impact the advent of .mp3, .avi and etc. formats have had on the recording and motion picture industries and their profit margins. The end-user has the final say, and no amount of industry bullying and even pleading will noticeably deflect the march of progress.

“You wouldn’t steal a car, would you?” LOL…with 3D printing, that’s now a literal question that will be answered with the same ruthless consumer selfishness that shrugged off the notion that a music file is a quasi-material item with monetary worth…

Even if the 3D printing information were witheld, it will be easy to sample and reconstruct. Every component is described in owners and repair manuals. Holding on to intellectual property in the future will be like trying to carry water in a strainer. So many places for it to leak out.

The effects of reproducible performances has had profound effects on music and the stage arts. Overall it has been very positive. Our lives are saturated with media. Throughout those times there have been booms and busts. At this point though we are coming to an abrupt change. Soon complete movies will be made without any actors or scenery. The same goes for rock concerts. If you missed Woodstock why not just go? A convincingly real experience, with you back stage, will be able to be synthesized on demand. Why go to the Lady Gaga concert when you can hang out back stage anytime you like. How to inforce intellectual property and copywright will be impossible soon. You’ve got the Hope Diamond and you want to sell it. Who would want to buy it if you can print it out for about ten bucks, or buy it on eBay for nine. No way to tell the difference. A perfect copy every time. Think about what that does to valuation. What happens to the concept of ownership?

” Holding on to intellectual property in the future will be like trying to carry water in a strainer.” AGREED 100%

But when it comes to “effects on music and the stage arts”, my experience is that attending in person is almost as much about sharing the event with fellow members of the audience as about experiencing the artist. (Much truer for music than plays) So that while digital experiences can bring you the basics of the performance, they can never bring you the experience of being part of the audience in real time. As wonderful and useful as our enhanced digital access to things will be going forward, they simply can’t replace the experience of being there in person. And that’s OK. The digital may just make more people want to also experience the live version.

I actually agree with almost this whole post. You didn’t trigger any of my “true rejections” this time. Interesting.

It’s interesting that I apply classical liberal standards to the current world, because sociopaths exist. However, if sociopaths were made less powerful, I might apply a more “voluntarily socialist” or “altruistic” set of standards, because I truly value people, and don’t believe that being born into poverty should be a death sentence.

I can also see how IP will eventually become even more unenforceable than it already is, and how essentially all “sales” amount to begging, or calling informational attention to value. In that regard artists will perhaps be a little more like street hucksters.

I still favor voluntaryist minarchism up until that transition becomes great enough to at least feed, clothe, and shelter everyone automatically and minimally, with virtually no effort. Until that point, it seems that the urge to feed everyone is a false face to rule everyone.

However, that point might arrive sooner than we all think, so I’m hesitant to give time estimates. The singularity could “pop” any day now. In fact, it might already have happened, for the elite farmers (if the singularity is already “rather malevolent”).

There is one key variable that can be measured: are the injustice mills (“mala prohibita” courts) still in full operation? In Denver, for example, Arapahoe County prosecutor stopped prosecuting marijuana cases a year before marijuana was legalized there. That’s a step in the right direction, but it was an unprincipled step (a step due to necessity, not empathy, conscience, or emotional maturity).

Too late buddy. The nanotech is already in the hands of the 99% because you are too stupid to understand what your workers are doing. Right now at the biotech end of the nanotech revolution it’s the 99% who have the tech. You just have the money. Until you make a mistake and invest wrong. And you will. Once you have lost it you will be one of the 99% like the rest of us and will be forced to earn a living. But you will be unable to because you are used to telling people what to do rather than producing anything of value. See ya.